The JFKA As A Whodunnit

[Lance Payette]

If it's impossible to say, why would you think Oswald would have been tried separately for each murder. I can think of lot's of cases where someone charged with multiple homicides had them tried in a single trial. I can't think of one in which they were tried separately except in cases where the crimes were committed in different jurisdictions.

I was trying to be kind, as opposed to saying "I'm a former lawyer with 40 years of experience and you're a layman with no clue what you're talking about."  I am now satisfied that for the reasons AI stated, which is pretty much the same as what I stated, two trials would have been held. These were two separate murders in different locations, and trying them together would have been both confusing to a jury and highly prejudicial to Oswald. Under the current Texas Penal Code, a prosecutor can combine offenses in one trial if they are part of the same "episode," which JFK and Tippit arguably (but not 100% clearly) were; however, the defendant can move for severance (i.e., two trials) if a joint trial would unfairly prejudice him. I have virtually no doubt Oswald would be successful with such a motion. This is not like "Oswald shot JFK and then turned and shot Tippit as he appeared in the doorway." The separation of time, location and circumstance, and the messiness of the Tippit case, would make one trial very difficult - I'm not even sure the prosecution would want to combine them.

[John Corbett]

I was trying to be kind, as opposed to saying "I'm a former lawyer with 40 years of experience and you're a layman with no clue what you're talking about."  I am now satisfied that for the reasons AI stated, which is pretty much the same as what I stated, two trials would have been held. These were two separate murders in different locations, and trying them together would have been both confusing to a jury and highly prejudicial to Oswald. Under the current Texas Penal Code, a prosecutor can combine offenses in one trial if they are part of the same "episode," which JFK and Tippit arguably (but not 100% clearly) were; however, the defendant can move for severance (i.e., two trials) if a joint trial would unfairly prejudice him. I have virtually no doubt Oswald would be successful with such a motion. This is not like "Oswald shot JFK and then turned and shot Tippit as he appeared in the doorway." The separation of time, location and circumstance, and the messiness of the Tippit case, would make one trial very difficult - I'm not even sure the prosecution would want to combine them.

It seems to me a lawyer with 40 years of experience should be able to answer a layman's question as to what other case in which someone charged with multiple homicides in the same jurisdiction was given separate trials for each. I've already pointed to some where one trial covered multiple homicides. In these cases, the homicides were not in the same location nor on the same date. Based solely on anecdotal evidence, it seems to me separate trials would be the exception, not the rule.

It also seems like questionable strategy for the defense. Two trials means two chances for the prosecution to get a conviction. Also two chances to get a death sentence. Combining the trials means the defense only needs to convince one jury of reasonable doubt.

[Lance Payette]

It seems to me a lawyer with 40 years of experience should be able to answer a layman's question as to what other case in which someone charged with multiple homicides in the same jurisdiction was given separate trials for each.

To be blunt, it seems that way to you because you are a know-it-all on almost every topic you know nothing about. Probably 97% of all cases, including murders,  do not result in reported decisions. A reported decision is published only if the case is appealed and the appellate court believes its opinion is significant enough to publish. I have no idea, and am certainly not going to attempt to research, whether there are reported decisions involving the issue of whether a trial involving multiple murders should have been severed. Probably there are, but surely not many. The Texas Penal Code pretty much tells us the answer: One trial is permissible if two crimes are part of the same "episode," but the defense may object that trying the crimes together would be unfairly prejudicial. Hence, the determination is made on a case-by-case basis. It is highly unlikely that two murders separated in time, location and circumstance, requiring entirely different evidence and witnesses, would be tried together. The prejudice to Oswald would be exactly why an LN zealot like you would want them tried together - if he killed Tippit, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he must've killed JFK. It is highly unlikely that the prosecution would even want them tried together because this would be handing the defense an almost guaranteed grounds for appeal. In the case of the Tippit murder, I believe the defense would have a solid threshold argument that this was not even the same episode as the JFK murder.

Lawyers go to law school to learn to "think like a lawyer." Believe me, your nuance-free, black-and-white view of every issue would've put you at the bottom of the class.

[Lance Payette]

To satisfy my own curiosity, I did 37 seconds of research on the issue of whether two crimes are part of the same "episode." A 2020 Tennessee case explained that "Offenses are part of the 'same criminal episode' when they 'occur simultaneously or in close sequence,'  'occur in  the  same place or in closely situated places,' and 'proof of one offense necessarily involves proof of the others.'" The JFK-Tippit murders arguably fail all three tests, but they definitely fail the third. There is no overlap of proof. The made-for-TV mock trial had to have involved a stipulation that the Tippit stuff could be included for dramatic effect, but that probably would not have been the case in a real-world trial of Oswald.

Let's see, 37 seconds at $500/hr. Someone here owes me $4.12, or would if I were still a lawyer, but since I'm not I'll settle for $2.12.

[John Corbett]

To be blunt, it seems that way to you because you are a know-it-all on almost every topic you know nothing about. Probably 97% of all cases, including murders,  do not result in reported decisions. A reported decision is published only if the case is appealed and the appellate court believes its opinion is significant enough to publish. I have no idea, and am certainly not going to attempt to research, whether there are reported decisions involving the issue of whether a trial involving multiple murders should have been severed. Probably there are, but surely not many. The Texas Penal Code pretty much tells us the answer: One trial is permissible if two crimes are part of the same "episode," but the defense may object that trying the crimes together would be unfairly prejudicial. Hence, the determination is made on a case-by-case basis. It is highly unlikely that two murders separated in time, location and circumstance, requiring entirely different evidence and witnesses, would be tried together. The prejudice to Oswald would be exactly why an LN zealot like you would want them tried together - if he killed Tippit, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he must've killed JFK. It is highly unlikely that the prosecution would even want them tried together because this would be handing the defense an almost guaranteed grounds for appeal. In the case of the Tippit murder, I believe the defense would have a solid threshold argument that this was not even the same episode as the JFK murder.

Lawyers go to law school to learn to "think like a lawyer." Believe me, your nuance-free, black-and-white view of every issue would've put you at the bottom of the class.

So your claim that the norm is for multiple homicides to be tried separately is just something you pulled out of your ass with nothing to back it up. That's what I thought.

The case against Oswald is black and white if one looks at the evidence and follows it to a logical conclusion. It couldn't be more obvious both in the JFKA and the murder of Tippit. There is no gray area. Most CTs don't seem to want a black and white answer to this case. So instead of focusing on the evidence they look at silly stuff to try to create doubt where none exists. They raise pointless questions like "Why did Oswald do this?" or "Why did Oswald do that?". That approach goes nowhere because no one can know why Oswald did anything because he never told anybody why he did it. The evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that he did kill JFK and he did kill J. D. Tippit.

I think back to what Vincent Bugliosi had to say about this case. Maybe you've heard of him. He went to law school too and I'm pretty sure he didn't finish at the bottom of his class. In fact, he had a pretty successful career as a trial lawyer both as a prosecutor and defense attorney. I don't have the exact quote exact word for word but essentially he said that anybody who doesn't believe Oswald killed JFK is either unaware of the evidence against him or they are a very silly person. Amen to that.

[John Corbett]

To satisfy my own curiosity, I did 37 seconds of research on the issue of whether two crimes are part of the same "episode." A 2020 Tennessee case explained that "Offenses are part of the 'same criminal episode' when they 'occur simultaneously or in close sequence,'  'occur in  the  same place or in closely situated places,' and 'proof of one offense necessarily involves proof of the others.'" The JFK-Tippit murders arguably fail all three tests, but they definitely fail the third. There is no overlap of proof. The made-for-TV mock trial had to have involved a stipulation that the Tippit stuff could be included for dramatic effect, but that probably would not have been the case in a real-world trial of Oswald.

Let's see, 37 seconds at $500/hr. Someone here owes me $4.12, or would if I were still a lawyer, but since I'm not I'll settle for $2.12.

Really. It seems to me two murders committed about 45 minutes apart are in close sequence. I would say Dealey Plaza and Oak Cliff are closely situated. Certainly, those two murders were committed in much closer sequence and much more closely situated than the Manson family murders or Gacy's murders which were prosecuted in a single trial.

[Lance Payette]

It also seems like questionable strategy for the defense. Two trials means two chances for the prosecution to get a conviction. Also two chances to get a death sentence. Combining the trials means the defense only needs to convince one jury of reasonable doubt.

I just noticed this. What is this even supposed to mean? If the two murders were tried together, there would be two verdicts as in the OJ case - guilty as to JFK, not guilty as to Tippit (or vice versa, or whatever). For a victory, the defense would have to convince the jury of reasonable doubt as to both murders. The only difference with separate trials is that there would be separate juries. The advantage to the defense would be eliminating the possibility of prejudice - with separate trials you wouldn't have the risk of the jury deciding Oswald "must have" killed JFK because he killed Tippit (or vice versa). If Oswald were first convicted of killing Tippit, then that conviction could possibly be used as showiing consciousness of guilt in the prosecution for killing JFK - but criminal work was about 0.00001% of my entire legal career, and I'm not going to pretend to know more than I do. (Generally, prior convictions are not admissible.)

Interesting: I just watched parts of the 1986 mock trial on DVP's YouTube channel. It appears that Callaway was the only "Tippit" witness called to testify. However, Bugliosi mentioned the Tippit murder in his opening statement and especially in his closing. In his closing, he emphasized that Oswald's murder of Tippit "explains" his murder of JFKA. But, of course, Oswald's murder of Tippit had not been established. This is exactly the prejudice I'm talking about and why separate trials would almost surely have been held.